I find the claim that people are generally more well informed about the state of the world in countries without a free press and independent institutions quite absurd. The western societies are certainly not perfect, but the messy information landscape in some of them is in my view an indication that different views are able to clash and make their cases with relatively little intervention from the authorities.
That type of information landscape isn't a threat when it is lies to various degrees, in total.
Polls indicate that most Americans don't see the Press as free (trustworthy). They now view it more akin to how people do in authoritarian states. There are reasons for that outside of observer error.
What's more insidious? An openly captured press that is expected to lie or a captured press that claims the banner of freedom?
Last, objective observation of lock-step action of institutions over the past seven years or so, for example, seems to hint at a lack of independence.
As would any indication of a concrete lie that the press seems to be cooperating in hiding.
There is no such thing like a free press. Most media is subject to financial incentives and right and left there are topics that will never be covered even without censorship.
I mean, kinda?
But with this logic it's impossible to ever have a freemedia, or anything really. No human is ever free because there are always some incentives, or even needs (financial, social) one has to adhere to.
